Parents are upset over gun violence. Kids are upset over having to hold up signs all day. (Photo credit: ABC News)

The Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, under the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently published a study of findings related to violence and guns. Some of the results may come as a shock – to those on both sides of the gun control argument.

The study was conducted as part of the 23 Executive Actions signed by President Obama in January in an effort to reduce gun violence. The order specifically called to “issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

Some have posed the logical question as to why the CDC would become involved in such a study which focuses on gun violence when the priority of the agency lies in the preventing and control of diseases. The academic community chose to study gun violence as a public health problem, partly because, according to the study, “Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious.” Therefore, gun violence is being studied in the same manner of a contagious disease.

The study did, however, recognize the right to bear arms as a basic human right acknowledged by the United States Constitution.

“An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.”

The initial summary of the study reiterated the need for sound evidence from a scientific standpoint to produce public policies that will best support the rights of the people while still doing whatever possible to protect the public from potential threats of violence.

“The evidence generated by implementing a public health research agenda can enable the development of sound policies that support both the rights and the responsibilities central to gun ownership in the United States. In the absence of this research, policy makers will be left to debate controversial policies without scientifically sound evidence about their potential effects.”

While the problem of gun violence is multi-faceted with no one single solution, the study resulted in a whole plethora of useful information (the entire study can be read here).

There were five primary areas of interest on which the study focused: The characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, gun safety technology, and the influence of video games and other media.

It was found that there are vast differences in who is more likely to become a victim of gun violence, with primary factors lying in socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Homicide rates were shown to be significantly higher in African Americans, while suicide rates were higher in Caucasians.

Additionally, the study concluded that high rates of poverty, illicit drug trafficking and substance use all increase the risk of becoming involved in gun violence. In addition, “criminals often engage in violence as a means to acquire money, goods or other rewards.”

However, the study also inadvertently explored some of the myths surrounding what seems like a recent epidemic of gun violence, including accidental deaths and mass shootings.

According to the study, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century.” Accidental deaths resulting from firearms accounted for less than one percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.

“Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. … It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.”

The study also explored an often overlooked statistic regarding suicide, especially among veterans. “Firearm-related suicides — though receiving far less public attention — significantly outnumber homicides for all age groups, with suicides accounting for approximately 60 percent of all firearm injury fatalities in the United States in 2009. In 2010, suicide was the 10th leading cause of death among individuals in the United States over the age of 10.”

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

In reference to gun safety technology, the study claims that “research from the injury prevention field indicates that changing products to make them safer is frequently more effective at reducing injury and death than trying to change personal behavior.”

Judging by what they’re wearing, it was both cold and wet that day. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)

With the latest gun debate, there has been more emphasis placed on violent video games, movies and other media. However, the study’s findings on the influence of these things were inconclusive.

“The vast majority of research on the effects of violence in media has focused on violence portrayed in television and the movies, although more recent research has been expanded to include music, video games, social media, and the Internet. Interest in media effects is fueled by the fact that youth are spending more time engaging with media that portrays increasing amounts of violence. Although research on the effects of media violence on real-life violence has been carried out for more than 50 years, none of this research has focused on firearm violence in particular as an outcome. As a result, a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and additional research is necessary.”

The results of this study were surprisingly unbiased for the most part and closely resemble the findings from a similar study conducted following the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, in which the CDC concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

Sorry Mark gotta break in here...Every study done has shown that lack of legal guns...Means CRIME GOES UP!!! So I guess to prevent crime we need to take guns away from people?????......If anyone wants to see a drastic decrease in crime, then arm yourself, arm you neighbors, shoot together and post the targets on your door....I'll bet criminals bypass you neighborhood and move on to where unarmed innocent victims are waiting to be robbed...... My final thought...Bank guards are armed, but schools are not?????? Really what means more?

People have been killing each other for tens of thousands of year, the VAST majority of that time, guns were never even invented. One day we will invent something more effective at killing than a gun, and we will transition to killing each other with that thing.

Seems like a balanced study except for the complete lack of exploration into the connection between violent crime and the use of prescribed SSRI's (antidepressants like Prozac). Almost one-for-one the recent mass shootings were carried out by people who were either on or just recently got off this type of drug. These shooters usually had no prior history of violence.
This connection, between SSRI's and violent behavior, is well documented but continues to be ignored. The only reason I can come up with is that the FDA, AMA, APA, mass media and the CDC must be getting some type of compensation from big-pharma, resulting in the subject being avoided. This needs to be looked into further and if a cover-up exists criminal charges need to pursued. Some of the documentation and facts are available at: www.cchr.org.

But the simple fact you've overlooked quite on purpose I would guess is that mass shootings make up almost 0% of deaths by firearms. 300,000 deaths by firearms yearly and less than 100 from mass shootings.

i would have liked to see them look into magazine capacity and gun violence. do places with/without restrictions on magazine capacity have more gun violence? how many shootings etc... were with guns with a "high capacity magazine"? then they could at least start putting that BS argument to rest.

Even if that link with SSRI's is established, take a look at the total number of mass shooting events, and the total number of people on SSRI's. Still a very weak and tenuous connection to be blaming meds millions are taking for the actions of a very small group on those meds. It's comparable to blaming the 10's of millions of gun owners for the acts of the same very small group of perpetrators. Yes there is likely a connection, but more likely the meds were just an attempt to treat the problems their brains had functioning correctly in our society.

Raymond Romero History has already demonstrated the answer to the magazine capacity issue. The VA Tech shooter had a mix of 10 and 17 round magazines. He fired 170 rounds from 10 magazines. Do the Math. The Columbine shooters averaged less than 10 rounds per magazine. Magazine capacity limits add seconds to the time it takes a shooter to kill multiple victims. Meanwhile those victims are waiting 10 minutes or more for a police response. Not that big of a factor.

Dirk Willden
The link may be "weak and tenuous" but the fact that there is one means it's a fair question that should be asked and researched. Nobody wants to see people flip and kill a bunch of others. Whether SSRIs are ruled out or not by the answer, is not the sole benefi. Certain people may be adversely affected by certain meds or categories of meds. Hence some people are more prone to rare side affects than others. People asking questions is how we progress the science. The questions may even lead to better meds, understanding of why certain people are prone to the side effects than others or even real fixes for people's need for the SSRIs. Research is definitely needed.

But Andrew Plaisted, that just brings us back around to blaming an inanimate object, one that helps millions, for the acts of a very few.
The fact is these events are purely statistical outliers. I doubt there will ever be a way to prevent them.

We can reduce the fame they get, but blaming a medication that in fact helps most who take it is just as foolish as blaming the guns, knives, bombs or other weapons they use.
How about this radical idea, we simply blame the individuals who do such heinous acts. We stop looking for an object to blame, and simply put accountability on those who do such evil acts.

HAHAHA! I love seeing the woman in the back holding up "Background Checks saves lives". She's obviously never bought a gun before or did her homework, cause a background check is the first step for buying a gun.

Here is a study I want to see the results of. Lets look at all of the denied background checks that were valid(not the false denials), take those and find out how many of those denied criminals have since been involved in a shooting or murder. Then lets see how those criminals ended of getting their firearms. Then the victims of those shootings and murders can hold the federal government liable for not prosecuting the criminals attempting to purchase a firearm.

Marissa Thomas That isn't exactly the point of the sign. They want background checks on all sales, including private sales, creating a Federal Registry of all legally owned guns in only one generation.

Sounds like they pretty much duplicated Dr. Lott's study and found the same results - Could've save a whole lot of tax money by just licensing his data... (Results and data in his book 'More Guns = Less Crime")

Evil people are going to do evil things! That is a fact! No law will prevent someone who is intent on being a news item for 2 days is going to prevent this. I know this sounds silly, but while we are passing laws that don't do a hill of beans worth of good. Lets do one more.

New Law :
No news media shall reveal the name of a person(s) involved in a shooting where more than 2 people are killed by said said shooter. Releasing the name shall said person shall cause the person(tv anchor, news person) releasing the name to a automatic 5 year prison sentence. Any editor, manager or supervisor of said Person is subject to a $25,000.00 fine.

Now I know you saying what good would that do? well if you not going to be known as the "such and such" the Blah blah shooter, then who care who you are if no one knows your name.

I just destroyed you 15 minutes of fame.
It's a hellva lot better then back ground checks.

Gun Violence in our cities is not a GUN problem, its an illegal DRUG problem and sometimes a legal drug problem, when CRAZIES stop taking their legal medications. The government doesn't really care about "gun violence", a term liberals came up with. The government wants a total collection of all guns so they can totally take over our county and "transform" into into the country they want with them as the elites and us as the subjects. This is nothing new, this same scenario has happened many times in the History of our World. People need to become reacquainted with History or we will be doomed to repeat it. Its not too late yet, but it getting close to being too late.

They did and it was defunded and not completed, so I am wondering if they just took liberties from what data they had. Their first statements or conclusions were way off and quite BIAS, when compared to other stats they published. CDC in my opinion has no credibility on this topic!

Good stuff to know, the suicide ratio was very surprising to me, but there is no incident nor even environment of violence that justifies the disarmament of those who are not involved in it, much less those who are the victims of it. Who is who? That is always the question.

“An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago."

I appreciate the results, but do take exception with the statement that "An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution" - it was acknowledged as an inalienable right, not granted or established by our Constitution.

I have over 15 years of objective, observation data to reveal the entertainment industry (movies) is culpable for emboldening youth and others to use firearms in violent assaults [ref: www.capalert.com].

"The academic community chose to study gun violence as a public health problem, partly because, according to the study, “Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious.”.

Really. That must mean all those violent games, videos, and movies are really responsible for all the violence that's occurring across our once-great nation. Jack Valente, apologize to the parents of kids murdered by numbskulls "infected" by your movies, which are a contagious disease.